Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 56039 

VEHICLES MANUFACTURED FOR OTHER THAN THE CANADIAN MARKET—Continued 

Manufacturer VSP VSA VCP Model type(s) Body Model year(s) 

Toyota ................................. 328 .......... .......... RAV4 ............................................................................... ..................... 1996 

Toyota ................................. 200 .......... .......... Van .................................................................................. ..................... 1987–1988 

Triumph (MC) ..................... 311 .......... .......... Thunderbird ..................................................................... ..................... 1995–1999 

Triumph (MC) ..................... 409 .......... .......... TSS ................................................................................. ..................... 1982 

Vespa (MC) ........................ 378 .......... .......... ET2, ET4 ......................................................................... ..................... 2001–2002 

Volkswagen ........................ 306 .......... .......... Eurovan ........................................................................... ..................... 1993–1994 

Volkswagen ........................ 80 .......... .......... Golf .................................................................................. ..................... 1988 

Volkswagen ........................ 159 .......... .......... Golf .................................................................................. ..................... 1987 

Volkswagen ........................ 92 .......... .......... Golf III .............................................................................. ..................... 1993 

Volkswagen ........................ 467 .......... .......... Golf Rallye ....................................................................... ..................... 1989 

Volkswagen ........................ 73 .......... .......... Golf Rallye ....................................................................... ..................... 1988 

Volkswagen ........................ 149 .......... .......... GTI (Canadian market) ................................................... ..................... 1991 

Volkswagen ........................ 274 .......... .......... Jetta ................................................................................. ..................... 1994–1996 

Volkswagen ........................ 148 .......... .......... Passat 4-door Sedan ...................................................... ..................... 1992 

Volkswagen ........................ 42 .......... .......... Scirocco ........................................................................... ..................... 1986 

Volkswagen ........................ 251 .......... .......... Transporter ...................................................................... ..................... 1990 

Volkswagen ........................ 284 .......... .......... Transporter ...................................................................... ..................... 1988–1989 

Volvo ................................... 43 .......... .......... 262C ................................................................................ ..................... 1981 

Volvo ................................... 137 .......... .......... 740 GL ............................................................................ ..................... 1992 

Volvo ................................... 87 .......... .......... 740 Sedan ....................................................................... ..................... 1988 

Volvo ................................... 286 .......... .......... 850 Turbo ........................................................................ ..................... 1995–1998 

Volvo ................................... 95 .......... .......... 940 GL ............................................................................ ..................... 1993 

Volvo ................................... 137 .......... .......... 940 GL ............................................................................ ..................... 1992 

Volvo ................................... 132 .......... .......... 945 GL ............................................................................ ..................... 1994 

Volvo ................................... 176 .......... .......... 960 Sedan & Wagon ....................................................... ..................... 1994 

Volvo ................................... 434 .......... .......... C70 .................................................................................. ..................... 2000 

Volvo ................................... 335 .......... .......... S70 .................................................................................. ..................... 1998–2000 

Yamaha (MC) ..................... 113 .......... .......... FJ1200 (4 CR) ................................................................ ..................... 1991 

Yamaha (MC) ..................... .......... .......... 23 FJR 1300 ......................................................................... ..................... 2002 

Yamaha (MC) ..................... 360 .......... .......... R1 .................................................................................... ..................... 2000 

Yamaha (MC) ..................... 171 .......... .......... RD–350 ........................................................................... ..................... 1983 

Yamaha (MC) ..................... 301 .......... .......... Virago .............................................................................. ..................... 1990–1998 

Issued on: September 15, 2006. 

Nicole R. Nason, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–8260 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 051128312–6192–02; I.D. 

111605A] 

RIN 0648–AS15 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Amendment 13 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 13 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

(Amendment 13), as prepared and 

submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council). This 

final rule establishes a 10-year 

moratorium on issuance of Federal Gulf 

shrimp vessel permits; requires owners 

of vessels fishing for or possessing royal 

red shrimp from the Gulf of Mexico 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to have 

a royal red shrimp endorsement; 

requires owners or operators of all 

federally permitted Gulf shrimp vessels 

to report information on landings and 

vessel and gear characteristics; and 

requires vessels selected by NMFS to 

carry observers and/or install an 

electronic logbook provided by NMFS. 

In addition, Amendment 13 establishes 

biological reference points for penaeid 

shrimp and status determination criteria 

for royal red shrimp. The intended 

effects of this final rule are to provide 

essential fisheries data, including 

bycatch data, needed to improve 

management of the fishery and to 

control access to the fishery. Finally, 

NMFS informs the public of the 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in 

this final rule and publishes the OMB 

control numbers for those collections. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

October 26, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

may be obtained from Steve Branstetter, 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 

13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701; telephone 727–824–5305; fax 

727–824–5308; e-mail 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

Comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule may be 

submitted in writing to Jason Rueter at 

the Southeast Regional Office address 

(above) and to David Rostker, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), by email at DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or 

by fax to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727–551–

5796; fax: 727–824–5308; e-mail: 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the Council and is 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. 

On November 23, 2005, NMFS 

published a notice of availability of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
56040 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Amendment 13 and requested public 

comment (70 FR 70780). On April 5, 

2006, NMFS published the proposed 

rule to implement Amendment 13 and 

requested public comment on the 

proposed rule (71 FR 17062). NMFS 

approved Amendment 13 on February 

21, 2006. The rationale for the measures 

in Amendment 13 is provided in the 

amendment and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

Comments and Responses 

Following is a summary of the 

comments NMFS received on 

Amendment 13 and the proposed rule 

and the respective NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: Penaeid shrimp stocks 

are not overfished or undergoing 

overfishing, thus, there is no biological 

reason for a moratorium on the issuance 

of new vessel permits in the Gulf 

penaeid shrimp fishery. The only 

rationale for such action is based on 

economics, in violation of national 

standard 5. 

Response: NMFS disagrees there is no 

biological reason to establish a 

moratorium in the Gulf shrimp fishery. 

Although shrimp stocks are not 

overfished or undergoing overfishing, 

shrimp effort directly impacts bycatch 

species, such as the overfished red 

snapper stock. The intent of the 

moratorium is to cap the fishery at its 

recent level of participants and reduce 

the possibility of future entry into the 

fishery should the currently poor 

economic situation change. Capping 

participation in the fishery reduces the 

potential for future increases in red 

snapper bycatch and improves the 

probability of rebuilding this overfished 

stock. 

Comment 2: The Council violated the 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

the Administrative Procedures Act by 

taking final action on an incomplete 

document. As requested by the Council, 

NMFS presented new information to the 

Council as a hand-out at the meeting. 

The Council members had little time to 

review the new information before 

taking final action on the amendment. 

The completed analyses were not 

incorporated into the document when 

the Council voted to submit the 

amendment to the Secretary of 

Commerce. 

Response: At its March 2005 meeting, 

the Council added new alternatives to 

the document to consider a more recent 

control date for the fishery. One 

possible date was May 2, 2005. Analyses 

of the impacts of this potential control 

date could not be entirely completed 

prior to the Council’s review of the 

document during its May 11–12, 2005, 

meeting. NMFS’ preliminary results 

presented to the Council at the May 

2005 meeting did provide comparative 

information among the various 

alternatives, and the results did not 

change with subsequent post-meeting 

completion of the analytical report. 

Therefore, the information before the 

Council at its May 2005 meeting was 

accurate, and provided the Council with 

a sound basis for making an informed 

decision. The verbatim minutes of the 

May 2005 Council meeting illustrate the 

extensive and informed discussions 

among Council members regarding the 

comparative impacts and benefits 

attributable to the various control date 

alternatives. 

Comment 3: The Council considered 

more current control date alternatives 

based on public input at the March 2005 

meeting from Asian American shrimp 

fishermen who were not aware permits 

had been required since December 5, 

2002. By adding the new alternatives for 

a control date, including the May 2, 

2005, date, the Council led the public to 

believe a change to a May 2, 2005, 

control date was likely. In previous 

actions to establish permit moratoria in 

the reef fish fishery, the Council revised 

control dates to more current dates to 

better ensure inclusion of active 

participants. Had the Council chosen 

the May 2, 2005, control date, an 

additional 285 vessels would have 

qualified for a moratorium permit. 

Maintaining the December 6, 2003, 

control date specifically affects small 

isolated fishing communities in 

violation of national standard 8. 

Response: Between December 5, 2002, 

and May 2, 2005, 2,951 vessels had been 

issued Federal shrimp permits. Of those, 

285 would not meet the December 6, 

2003, control date; therefore, the 

number of permitted vessels under the 

moratorium would be 2,666. Of the 285 

ineligible vessels, NMFS determined 

126 were not active in the fishery during 

2002 (the last year of data available 

during the time the Council deliberated 

on this issue), and may no longer be in 

the fishery. In addition, 87 of the 

remaining 159 active vessels only 

operated in state waters. Therefore, 

NMFS estimated 72 vessels active in the 

EEZ fishery would be excluded under 

the moratorium. Of these vessels, 45 are 

large and 27 are small, and NMFS 

estimated most of the impacts would be 

imposed on the 45 large vessels; the 

small vessels were more likely to 

continue fishing in state waters. 

Nevertheless, vessels can continue to 

fish in the EEZ by obtaining a 

moratorium permit through transfer. 

Given the number of inactive permits 

identified in the analysis, NMFS 

believes many latent permits currently 

exist. Although at the present time it is 

not possible to assess the impacts of the 

very active 2005 hurricane season on 

the shrimp fleet, many vessels were 

damaged or stranded on land. These 

vessels may or may not become active 

in the fishery again. It is unknown how 

many were already inactive. 

Nevertheless, under the moratorium, 

owners of vessels permitted prior to the 

December 6, 2003, control date will be 

eligible for a moratorium permit. 

Therefore, there is expected to be a 

surplus of moratorium permits available 

for those owners of vessels who did not 

qualify but wish to continue 

participating in the fishery. Thus, NMFS 

disagrees that the moratorium is in 

violation of national standard 8. The 

moratorium is intended to reduce 

speculation in the fishery, cap capacity, 

and provide for the sustained 

participation of dependent fishing 

communities. With the availability of 

moratorium permits through transfer 

from inactive vessels, the moratorium 

should not prohibit continued 

participation by those wishing to do so. 

Comment 4: There has been a decline 

in the number of participating shrimp 

vessels for the past 3 years due to 

economic conditions in the fishery. 

NMFS estimates this trend is expected 

to continue through 2012. Many 

permitted vessels are not currently 

active in the fishery because they cannot 

do so profitably. Consequently, there is 

no justification for a moratorium in the 

foreseeable future. 

Response: Although the number of 

vessels has declined, until the last 2 or 

3 years, effort had remained high 

because of increased efficiency of the 

vessels in the fishery, including new 

and larger vessels that have replaced 

older smaller vessels. Even so, based on 

the number of permits issued in the 

fishery, NMFS estimates there is still 

excess capacity in the fishery, and fewer 

vessels could harvest the available crop 

in a more profitable manner. As noted 

in the previous responses, the intent of 

the moratorium is to cap the current 

participation and to prevent future 

expansion of the fishery should 

economic conditions improve. 

Comment 5: There was insufficient 

notice to the industry in regard to the 

permit requirement, the subsequent 

control date, and the establishment of a 

moratorium. 

Response: Until the shrimp vessel 

permit system was implemented, NMFS 

did not have a specific mechanism to 

contact shrimp vessel owners who 

fished in the EEZ. However, NMFS 

made numerous efforts to communicate 

information regarding the shrimp vessel 

permit requirements to the industry. In 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 56041 

late 2002, NMFS distributed Gulf 

shrimp vessel permit applications to 

various fishermen’s associations and 

unions, including Asian-American 

groups, throughout the Gulf of Mexico 

and South Atlantic. Outreach efforts 

continued through 2003 to these various 

communities regarding permit 

requirements. NMFS additionally 

notified the public of the final rule 

establishing a requirement for a shrimp 

vessel permit by publishing the final 

rule in the Federal Register and 

distributing news bulletins of this new 

requirement throughout the southeast 

region. A news bulletin was mailed in 

August 2002 to all existing commercial 

permit holders, all state agencies, 

enforcement groups, other Federal 

agencies, Sea Grant, the Gulf and 

Atlantic state commissions, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

media. Another news bulletin was 

issued in September 2002 announcing 

the December 5, 2002, effective date of 

the permit requirement. This bulletin 

was distributed to all Federal, state and 

local government groups within NMFS’

mail lists, commercial fishing 

associations, fishing clubs, recreational 

fishing associations, marinas, fishing 

centers, and tackle manufacturers. 

NMFS additionally acquired a list of all 

Gulf states shrimp license holders from 

the Gulf States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, and mailed a bulletin 

announcing the shrimp vessel permit 

requirement to each person within that 

database. In addition to NMFS’ efforts 

during the fall of 2002, the Council 

distributed a news bulletin to its 

constituent mail list as well. 

When the Council voted to establish 

the December 6, 2003, control date, 

NMFS notified the public of this action 

by publishing a notice in the Federal 

Register in April 2003, and distributed 

a news bulletin to Federal, state, and 

local government agencies; commercial, 

recreational, and non-government 

organizations and individuals; the 

media; and to the existing Federal 

shrimp vessel permit holders. In August 

2003, NMFS issued another news 

bulletin to the public as a reminder to 

obtain a commercial shrimp vessel 

permit before the control date. This 

bulletin was distributed to the following 

constituent lists: all governments; 

commercial, recreational, and nongovernmental organizations and 

individuals; rock shrimp permit vessel 

owners and dealers; and all Gulf shrimp 

permit vessel owners. The Council 

distributed a news bulletin to its 

constituent mail list as well. 

The Council added alternatives to 

establish the shrimp vessel permit 

moratorium to Amendment 13 at its 

May 2004 meeting. This action was 

announced in its June 2004 news 

bulletin. Public hearings were held on 

Amendment 13 throughout the Gulf of 

Mexico in February 2005. The dates and 

locations of these public hearings were 

published in the Federal Register as 

well as in the Council’s news bulletin. 

The Council heard public testimony at 

its March 2005 meeting. 

When the Council voted at its March 

2005 meeting to add an alternative to 

Amendment 13 to consider a new 2005 

control date, NMFS again sent a news 

bulletin to the public reminding them of 

the permit requirement. In addition to 

the normal distribution, including all 

shrimp vessel permit holders, this 

bulletin was sent to a specially created 

list of more than 600 known shrimp 

dealers in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 6: If a qualified vessel 

owned by a corporation is sold, and the 

corporation is then dissolved, but the 

officers or individual(s) behind that 

corporation bought a new vessel and 

form a new corporation, is the new 

corporation eligible for a moratorium 

permit? 

Response: Under the moratorium, a 

person who lost ownership or use of a 

qualified vessel after the control date, 

but who obtained and permitted a 

replacement vessel prior to the 

publication of this final rule would be 

eligible for a moratorium permit if they 

can successfully demonstrate continuity 

of ownership. NMFS’ permit records are 

the sole basis for determining eligibility 

based on permit history. 

Comment 7: A person who owns a 

qualified vessel and is issued a 

moratorium permit will be limited in 

his/her ability to sell that vessel and 

upgrade to a newer vessel. Shrimp 

vessels are rather specialized, with 

limited other uses. The owner would 

need to retain the moratorium permit for 

any new vessel he/she wishes to 

purchase. Without transferring the 

shrimp vessel permit with the sale of 

the original vessel, the value of the 

original vessel will be less on the open 

market, if a potential buyer wants to use 

the vessel in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp 

fishery. This lower value would restrict 

the funds available to the owner to 

purchase or make a down payment on 

a newer, or larger, or more wellequipped vessel. This could lead to an 

obsolescence of the fleet. 

Response: As noted in the response to 

Comment #3, NMFS believes there will 

be a surplus of moratorium permits 

available for transfer. An owner in such 

a situation as proposed by the comment 

has the opportunity to acquire an 

additional moratorium permit which 

will allow both his original and 

replacement vessel to be permitted to 

continue operations in the shrimp 

fishery. In addition, anecdotal evidence 

indicates many of the vessels being sold, 

where a different vessel is being 

purchased as a replacement, are being 

sold to interests outside the Gulf of 

Mexico shrimp fishery. 

Comment 8: There needs to be a 

mechanism to allow new entrants into 

the fishery if the number of moratorium 

permits issued is not sufficient to allow 

the fishery to harvest at maximum 

sustainable yield. 

Response: Should only a limited 

number of moratorium permits be 

issued, the Council could remove the 

moratorium in a future amendment to 

the FMP. However, NMFS estimates that 

2,666 shrimp vessels qualify for a 

moratorium permit, and this number 

may represent a fleet size that is still 

larger than the number of vessels 

required to harvest the available annual 

production of shrimp in the Gulf of 

Mexico. NMFS and the Council 

recognized that numerous vessels are 

not currently active in the fishery due 

to economic conditions, and several of 

these vessels may have left the fishery. 

In addition, a portion of the shrimp fleet 

was damaged and perhaps lost during 

the hurricanes of 2005. However, the 

inactive vessels would still qualify for a 

moratorium permit, and these permits 

could be transferred to a new vessel and 

owner should someone wish to enter the 

fishery. 

Royal Red Shrimp Permit Endorsement 

Comment 9: There is an insignificant 

number of vessels harvesting royal red 

shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico. There is 

no need to impose an additional cost on 

these vessels by requiring an 

endorsement to the commercial shrimp 

vessel permit to harvest royal red 

shrimp. 

Response: NMFS recognizes there are 

only 10–20 vessels participating in this 

fishery. However, there is limited 

information in regard to the catch, 

effort, and costs associated with this 

specialized fishery. The requirement for 

a royal red shrimp endorsement to the 

shrimp vessel permit will specifically 

identify the universe of active or 

potential royal red shrimp fishermen 

and vessels, facilitating data collection 

efforts applicable to this fishery. 

Reporting Requirements 

Comment 10: The requirement to 

place electronic logbooks (ELBs) on a 

sample of shrimp vessels will be too big 

a burden on the industry and small 

business owners, in general. There are 

concerns about the reliability of the 

equipment under shrimping conditions, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
56042 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

and hired captains may not be able to 

maintain the logbooks in a manner to 

provide accurate data on bycatch. 

Observers would be less of a burden for 

small businesses and would provide 

unbiased data. 

Response: ELBs are used as a measure 

of effort, not bycatch. Observers will be 

placed on a second random sample of 

shrimp vessels to document both effort 

and bycatch. There is no burden to the 

industry, or to the vessel crew, in 

having an ELB onboard. The ELB is 

designed to use Global Positioning 

System (GPS) information to 

automatically track the speed of the 

vessel. A pilot program using ELBs 

started in 1999, with increasing 

coverage each year. The reliability of the 

units, and the data product retrieved has 

provided substantial new information 

regarding the effort of the offshore 

shrimp fishery. The basis of the ELB 

program is to monitor vessel activity/ 

movement via the GPS. Subsequent 

analyses of the data assume three things: 

(1) if the vessel is not moving, it is not 

fishing; (2) if the vessel is moving 

slowly, it is trawling; and (3) if the 

vessel is moving at a high rate of speed, 

it is in transit. There is no burden or 

involvement by the vessel crew in 

maintaining the electronic logbook 

onboard. The unit would be installed by 

an industry partner working 

cooperatively with NMFS, and at the 

end of a trip or other time frame, would 

be removed by the industry partner. The 

cost of the electronic logbooks is to be 

borne by NMFS, thus there is no 

economic cost to the industry or small 

business owner. 

Comment 11: The various data 

reporting requirements (ELBs, observers, 

gear characterization, landings) should 

be voluntary, and not a condition for 

renewal of a vessel permit. 

Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires the Council to establish a 

standardized bycatch reporting 

methodology. To ensure 

standardization, any such methodology 

must incorporate a random sampling 

procedure that will accurately capture 

the various components of the fishery. 

Depending on the type of information 

needed (i.e., biological, economic, or 

social), a particular analysis may need 

to be stratified in a specific manner. For 

example, a study could be based on gear 

types, areas fished, geographic location 

of the participants, or size of the vessels. 

The existing voluntary observer program 

in the Gulf shrimp fishery illustrates the 

potential for non-representative data. 

Although this program has produced a 

large robust data base, it repeatedly used 

a small sample of vessels, primarily 

with home ports located in only two of 

the five Gulf states. These vessels may 

not represent a random sample of the 

fleet. Therefore, to ensure the ability to 

create a random sample of the existing 

population of shrimp fishermen and 

shrimp vessels, detailed information is 

needed for the entire universe of 

participants. Providing the reporting 

forms as part of the permit application 

provides an efficient mechanism to 

distribute the reporting forms to the 

fishermen and for them to return the 

forms when they submit their 

application to renew their federal vessel 

permit. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Southeast Region, 

NMFS, determined that Amendment 13 

is necessary for the conservation and 

management of the Gulf shrimp fishery 

and is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an FRFA for this 

action. The FRFA incorporates the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA), a summary of the significant 

issues raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, NMFS’ responses 

to those comments, and a summary of 

the analyses completed to support the 

action. A summary of the analyses 

follows. 

This final rule will: (1) require 

participants in the royal red shrimp 

fishery to obtain a royal red shrimp 

endorsement to the existing commercial 

shrimp vessel permit; (2) define 

biological reference points and status 

determination criteria definitions for the 

royal red and penaeid shrimp stocks; (3) 

establish a standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology by requiring a 

sample of permitted vessels to carry 

electronic logbooks (ELBs) and/or 

observers upon request; (4) require all 

permitted vessels to submit a vessel and 

gear characterization form on an annual 

basis; (5) establish a moratorium on the 

issuance of new Federal Gulf shrimp 

vessel permits based on the December 6, 

2003 control date; and (6) require all 

permitted vessels to report and certify 

their landings. 

The purpose of the final rule is to 

establish status determination criteria 

for penaeid (brown, white, and pink) 

and royal red shrimp stocks; enhance 

the collection of information; improve 

estimates of effort and bycatch in the 

fishery; and promote economic stability 

by reducing permit speculation and 

increasing vessel owners’ flexibility to 

enter and exit the Gulf shrimp fishery. 

Eleven comments were made by the 

public in response to the proposed rule. 

No changes were made in the final rule 

as a result of these comments. Of the 

eleven comments, four raised issues 

regarding the economic impacts of the 

proposed actions. First, one comment 

indicated that the requirement to place 

ELBs on a sample of shrimp vessels will 

place an excessive burden on the 

industry and small business owners. 

Since the cost of the ELBs is to be borne 

by NMFS, there is no direct economic 

cost to the industry or small business 

owners. The only burden to the industry 

from this requirement is the time 

necessary to coordinate the installation 

and removal of the unit by the agency 

or its contractor. Second, one comment 

indicated that, since there is an 

insignificant number of vessels 

harvesting royal red shrimp in the Gulf 

of Mexico, there is no need to impose 

an additional cost on these vessels by 

requiring an endorsement to the 

commercial shrimp vessel permit in 

order to harvest royal red shrimp. The 

endorsement is necessary to identify the 

universe of active or potential royal red 

shrimp fishermen and vessels, and the 

additional cost of $20 to obtain the 

endorsement is not expected to 

significantly reduce profit for these 

vessels. 

Finally, two comments raised 

concerns with the economic impacts of 

the permit moratorium. The first 

comment stated that these impacts 

would specifically affect small isolated 

fishing communities. NMFS identified 

approximately 72 active vessels in the 

Gulf shrimp EEZ fishery that will not 

qualify for moratorium permits and 

acknowledges that certain small, 

isolated fishing communities could be 

impacted by the permit moratorium, 

particularly if these non-qualifying 

vessels are forced to cease operations in 

the EEZ. However, it is estimated that 

27 of these vessels are small and could 

shift activity from the EEZ into state 

waters, thereby avoiding any impacts to 

the communities that serve these 

particular vessels. Furthermore, NMFS 

estimates that, of the qualifying 2,666 

vessels, 438 were not active in the Gulf 

shrimp fishery in 2002. The moratorium 

permits issued to these inactive, 

qualifying vessels should be available 

for purchase by non-qualifying vessel 

owners. The expected purchase price 

was estimated to be approximately 

$5,000. However, due to the impacts of 

hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the number 

of qualifying inactive vessels is 

expected to be even higher, thereby 

increasing the number of moratorium 

permits available for purchase by nonqualifying vessels, which would in turn 

reduce the expected purchase price and 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 56043 

further reduce any impacts on small, 

isolated communities. 

The second comment asserted that the 

moratorium would reduce the value of 

a qualifying vessel, since a portion of 

the value would shift to the permit, 

which would reduce the financial 

capital available to the owner of the 

qualifying vessel who wished to sell 

their original vessel to acquire a newer, 

larger, or more well-equipped vessel. 

NMFS agrees that the comment is 

accurate if the buyer intends to use the 

vessel in the Federal Gulf shrimp 

fishery and does not already possess a 

moratorium permit to place on the 

vessel. The seller does not have to 

transfer the permit with the vessel; 

therefore, the buyer would have to 

purchase a moratorium permit from 

another seller. However, if the buyer of 

the vessel does not intend to use it in 

the Federal Gulf shrimp fishery, the 

seller could retain the permit and place 

it on their new vessel, and the sales 

price of the original vessel would be 

reflective of its value in the fishery 

where it is expected to be used. 

Considerable anecdotal information 

suggests that many repossessed Gulf 

shrimp vessels are being bought for use 

in other non-shrimp fisheries in the U.S. 

and abroad. 

No duplicative, overlapping or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. 

It is estimated that 2,951 small 

entities will be affected by the final rule. 

This estimate represents the number of 

vessels that obtained a Gulf shrimp 

permit with an effective date on or 

before May 2, 2005. Certain actions 

would apply to all permitted vessels, 

while others would only apply to a 

subset of those permitted vessels. The 

actions specific to the royal red shrimp 

fishery would affect 15 small entities at 

most, though all but one of these entities 

is included in the larger group of 2,951. 

The average annual gross revenue per 

permitted vessel is estimated to be 

$100,477, with a range of $0 to 

$473,564. This wide range illustrates a 

high degree of heterogeneity between 

permitted vessels with respect to their 

gross revenues. Further, gross revenue 

earned from the various fisheries these 

entities operate in differs considerably 

between vessels. On average, permitted 

vessels rely on the Gulf food shrimp 

fishery for nearly 79 percent of their 

gross revenues. Therefore, most 

permitted vessels have a relatively high 

degree of dependency on the Gulf food 

shrimp fishery. However, some 

permitted vessels are inactive or 

‘‘latent’’ and appear to have no reliance 

on the Gulf food shrimp fishery. 

‘‘Small’’ vessels (vessels less than 60 ft 

(18.3 m) in length) generate lower gross 

revenues on average ($30,568) relative 

to ‘‘large’’ vessels (vessels of 60 ft (18.3 

m) or more in length) ($132,890). The 

range of gross revenues for large vessels 

is $0 and $473,564 while that of small 

vessels is $0 and $246,391. All royal red 

shrimp vessels fall into the ‘‘large’’

vessel category. 

The fleet of permitted vessels is much 

more homogeneous with respect to its 

physical characteristics, though some 

differences do exist. On average, small 

vessels are smaller in regards to almost 

all of their physical attributes (e.g., they 

use smaller crews, fewer and smaller 

nets, have less engine horsepower and 

fuel capacity, etc.). Small vessels are 

also older on average. Large vessels also 

tend to be steel-hulled. Conversely, 

fiberglass hulls are most prominent 

among small vessels, though steel and 

wood hulls are also common. Nearly 

two-thirds of the large vessels have 

freezing capabilities while few small 

vessels have such equipment. Small 

vessels rely on ice for refrigeration and 

storage, though more than one-third of 

large vessels also rely on ice. Some 

vessels are so small that they rely on 

live wells for storage. 

An important difference between 

large and small vessels is with respect 

to their dependency on the food shrimp 

fishery. The percentage of gross 

revenues from food shrimp landings is 

nearly 87 percent for large vessels, but 

only slightly more than 61 percent for 

small vessels. Thus, on average, large 

vessels are more dependent than their 

smaller counterparts on the food shrimp 

fishery. However, dependency on food 

shrimp is much more variable within 

the small vessel sector than the large 

vessel sector. That is, many small 

vessels are quite dependent on food 

shrimp landings, while others show 

little if any dependency. 

When examining the distribution of 

gross revenues across vessels, of the 

2,951 permitted vessels, 554 vessels did 

not have any verifiable Gulf food shrimp 

landings in 2002. Large and small 

vessels comprised approximately 75 

percent and 25 percent of the active 

group, respectively. Small vessels 

represented a majority (53 percent) of 

the inactive group. If inactive or 

‘‘latent’’ vessels are removed from 

consideration, for the permitted group 

as a whole, dependency on Gulf shrimp 

revenues increases to more than 97 

percent. For large vessels, dependency 

on Gulf shrimp revenues increased to 

nearly 98 percent. Consistent with the 

statistics above, when the inactive 

vessels are removed from consideration, 

the change in dependency on Gulf 

shrimp revenues is most dramatic for 

the small vessels, with nearly 94 percent 

of their gross revenues coming from 

Gulf shrimp landings. 

According to the most recent 

projections, on average, both small and 

large vessels are experiencing 

significant economic losses, ranging 

from a -27 percent rate of return in the 

small vessel sector to a -36 percent rate 

of return in the large vessel sector, or 

-33 percent on average for the fishery as 

a whole. Therefore, almost any but the 

most minor additional financial burden 

would be expected to generate a 

significant adverse impact on directly 

affected vessels and potentially hasten 

additional exit from the fishery. 

The Small Business Administration 

defines a small business that engages in 

commercial fishing as a firm that is 

independently owned and operated, is 

not dominant in its field of operation, 

and has annual receipts up to $3.5 

million per year. There are insufficient 

data regarding potential ownership 

affiliation between vessels to identify 

whether an individual entity controlled 

sufficient numbers of vessels to achieve 

large entity status. Therefore, it is 

assumed that each vessel represents a 

separate business entity and, based on 

the revenue profiles provided above, all 

entities in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp 

fishery are assumed to be small entities. 

Since all permitted vessels would be 

directly affected by one or more of the 

actions in this final rule and all vessels 

are considered to be small entities, the 

final rule will affect a substantial 

number of small entities. However, as 

explained below, the vast majority of 

these vessels will not be impacted under 

the most significant actions. 

The determination of significant 

economic impact can be ascertained by 

examining two issues: 

disproportionality and profitability. The 

disproportionality question is: will the 

regulations place a substantial number 

of small entities at a significant 

competitive disadvantage to large 

entities? Even though there is 

considerable diversity among the 

permitted vessels with respect to 

physical and operational characteristics, 

all entities are considered to be small 

entities and so disproportionality of 

impacts between large and small entities 

is not an issue. 

The profitability question is: will the 

regulations significantly reduce profit 

for a substantial number of small 

entities? According to the most recent 

projections, on average, both small and 

large vessels are experiencing 

significant economic losses, ranging 

anywhere from a -27 percent rate of 

return in the small vessel sector to a -36 

percent rate of return in the large vessel 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
56044 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

sector, or -33 percent on average for the 

fishery as a whole. Therefore, almost 

any but the most minor additional 

financial burden would be expected to 

significantly reduce profit since profits 

are negative, on average, throughout the 

fishery. 

The royal red shrimp endorsement 

requirement would result in an 

additional cost of $20 to the vessels 

operating in this fishery. This is a 

minimal cost and would not 

significantly reduce profit for the 

vessels operating in this fishery. 

The actions which define biological 

reference points and establish status 

determination criteria definitions for the 

royal red and penaeid shrimp stocks, 

require a sample of permitted vessels to 

carry ELBs and/or observers upon 

request, require all permitted vessels to 

submit a vessel and gear 

characterization form on an annual 

basis, and require all permitted vessels 

to report and certify their landings 

would not affect vessel profitability 

since they impose no direct financial 

costs. NMFS expects to cover all direct 

financial costs associated with the ELB 

and observer programs. 

However, it should be noted that the 

reporting requirements will likely 

impose a minimal opportunity cost by 

imposing time burdens. Specifically, the 

requirement for all permitted vessel 

owners to submit a vessel and gear 

characterization form will generate a 

time burden of approximately 30 

minutes per permitted vessel. According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 

average wage of first line supervisors/ 

managers in the fishing, forestry, and 

farming industries was $18.14 per hour 

as of May 2003, which is the most 

currently available information. 

Therefore, the form would create an 

annual opportunity cost of 

approximately $9 per vessel. 

Additionally, all permitted vessels will 

be required to submit their landings 

information to NMFS. This information 

could be included on either the vessel 

and gear characterization form or the 

existing permit application form 

without any significant increase in the 

estimated time burdens associated with 

either form. 

The single action that could impose 

significant costs and thereby 

significantly reduce the profitability of 

the affected small entities is the permit 

moratorium. The final rule limits 

participation to those vessels meeting 

the December 6, 2003 control date. Of 

the 2,951 permitted vessels, 285 vessels 

did not obtain their permits by the 

control date and, therefore, will not be 

issued a moratorium permit. However, 

according to the best available data, of 

those 285 vessels, 126 were not active 

in the Gulf shrimp fishery (EEZ or state 

waters) and an additional 87 vessels 

were determined to operate exclusively 

in state waters. It is therefore concluded 

that these 213 vessels will not 

experience direct and adverse financial 

impacts as a result of losing their 

permits. The remaining 72 vessels, of 

which 45 are large and 27 are small, 

were active in the EEZ and therefore 

would experience direct and adverse 

financial impacts. 

Assuming these 72 vessels would 

only lose their shrimp landings and 

gross revenues from the EEZ (i.e. they 

continue their shrimping operations in 

state waters), they would face revenue 

losses ranging between 0.8 percent and 

100 percent of their gross revenues, with 

an average loss of 49.3 percent per 

vessel. The large vessels will face a 

larger revenue loss on average (54.3 

percent) than the small vessels (29.6 

percent). However, if the small vessels 

shift their effort entirely into state 

waters and the large vessels exit the 

Gulf shrimp fishery instead, then only 

the 45 large vessels would experience a 

loss in landings and gross revenues, 

though that loss would be 100 percent 

of their gross revenues. On the other 

hand, since the permits would be fully 

transferrable under the final rule, these 

72 vessels may be able and willing to 

purchase a permit from a permitted 

vessel in order to continue current 

operations. Given an estimated permit 

purchase price of $5,000, this cost 

would represent 5.7 percent of these 

vessels’ average gross revenues. Thus, in 

the current, adverse economic climate 

in the Gulf shrimp fishery, regardless of 

which behavioral assumptions are 

made, profits would be significantly 

reduced for the 45 to 72 directly affected 

vessels that would not qualify for a 

moratorium permit under the final rule. 

Two alternatives, including the no 

action alternative, were considered to 

the requirement for a royal red shrimp 

endorsement to the Gulf shrimp permit. 

One alternative would have created a 

separate royal red shrimp permit. 

Although the direct cost of a separate 

royal red shrimp permit would be the 

same as for a royal red shrimp 

endorsement to the Gulf shrimp permit, 

at least for participants that also possess 

a Gulf shrimp permit ($20), this 

alternative would have eliminated the 

relationship between participation in 

the royal red shrimp fishery and 

possession of a Gulf shrimp permit. As 

a result, vessels that did not qualify 

under the permit moratorium action and 

vessels from other fisheries would be 

able to obtain royal red shrimp permits, 

though at a higher cost of $50 per 

permit, and thereby potentially 

introduce greater instability in the royal 

red shrimp fishery. Stable participation 

is particularly important in the royal red 

shrimp fishery since it is managed 

under a hard quota of 392,000 lb 

(177,808 kg). The no action alternative 

would not have met the Council’s 

objective of creating a readily available 

means to identify participants and 

operations in the royal red shrimp 

fishery. 

A total of nine alternatives, including 

three no action alternatives, were 

considered for the establishment of a 

standardized bycatch reporting 

methodology portion of the final rule. In 

general, the alternatives not included in 

the final rule would have either not met 

required mandates, imposed greater 

reporting and record keeping burdens, 

or not met the Council’s objectives. 

Two alternatives to the final rule 

would have required paper logbooks. 

Paper logbooks can impose significant 

impacts on small entities. Assuming a 

time burden of 10 minutes per daily 

form, and an average of 182 days at sea 

per vessel per year, the average annual 

time burden per vessel would be 

approximately 30.33 hours. From an 

economic perspective, even though 

there is no direct cash expense from a 

paper logbook program, there is an 

opportunity cost associated with any 

time burden created by additional 

reporting requirements. As previously 

noted, opportunity cost is approximated 

using the average wage or salary of the 

affected persons, who in this case would 

be the vessel owners and captains as 

they would be responsible for 

submitting the logbook forms. Using the 

average wage of first line supervisors/ 

managers in the fishing, forestry, and 

farming industries, which was $18.14 as 

of May 2003 according to the BLS, the 

average annual opportunity cost per 

vessel of a paper logbook reporting 

requirement would be approximately 

$550.19 ($18.14/hour * 30.33 hours). If 

only a sample of vessels were selected 

to report, which was also considered but 

not proposed, then the opportunity cost 

would be proportionally less and 

dependent on the chosen sampling rate 

for the fishery as a whole, but still 

$550.19 annually per vessel. 

An alternative to the ELB requirement 

would have required all permitted 

vessels, rather than a statistically valid 

sample of vessels, to use ELBs. 

Requiring all vessels to use ELBs would 

have increased the costs and burden of 

the program relative to the final rule. 

Given that the final rule does not 

require paper logbooks, also selecting 

the no action alternative for ELBs would 

have resulted in the Council’s objective 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 56045 

of improving estimates of effort and 

bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fishery to 

not be met. 

An alternative to the observer 

program would have utilized the 

existing voluntary observer program. 

However, such a system does not 

provide for authority to ensure adequate 

and random representation of the fleet. 

Thus, this alternative would not meet 

the Council’s objective of improving 

estimates of effort and bycatch in the 

Gulf shrimp fishery. Given that Section 

303(a)(11) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires the establishment of a 

standardized bycatch reporting 

methodology, and bycatch data can only 

be practically collected by observers in 

this fishery, the no action alternative 

would cause the Council to not be in 

compliance and, thus, was not chosen. 

Two alternatives, including the no 

action alternative, were considered to 

the vessel and gear characterization 

form requirement. The no action 

alternative and the alternative to require 

only a sample of permitted vessels to 

submit the vessel/gear characterization 

form would have reduced the minimal 

opportunity cost associated with the 

form. However, since ELBs do not 

collect gear information and the ELB 

and observer programs require certain 

census level information to ensure that 

statistically valid samples are selected, 

both alternatives would not have met 

the Council’s objective of improving 

estimates of effort and bycatch in the 

Gulf shrimp fishery. 

One alternative was considered to the 

requirement for all vessels to report and 

certify their landings to NMFS. This 

alternative would have continued 

NMFS’ current practice of only having 

selected vessels, as opposed to all 

vessels, individually report their 

landings information. Maintaining this 

current practice would severely limit 

the Council’s ability to determine 

whether or not permitted vessels are 

active in the fishery and the extent of 

that participation. In turn, this lack of 

information would significantly hamper 

the Council’s ability to potentially 

develop alternatives for long-term effort 

management in the fishery in the future, 

which is inconsistent with the Council’s 

objectives. 

Including the no action alternative, 

three alternatives were considered to the 

permit moratorium. The no action 

alternative would not achieve the 

Council’s objective of promoting 

economic stability by reducing permit 

speculation and increasing vessel 

owners’ flexibility to enter and exit the 

Gulf shrimp fishery. 

Another alternative would have used 

a qualification date of May 18, 2004 

rather than December 6, 2003 control 

date. Under this alternative, the number 

of non-qualifying vessels would be 161, 

which is 124 fewer vessels than under 

the final rule. Of those 161 vessels, 68 

vessels were not active in the Gulf 

shrimp fishery and 46 operated in state 

waters only according to the best 

available data. Thus, it is concluded that 

these 114 vessels’ profits would not 

have been affected under this 

alternative. Assuming that the 

remaining 47 vessels would lose all 

their landings and gross revenues from 

the EEZ, losses per vessel would range 

between 0.9 percent and 100 percent of 

their gross revenues, with an average 

loss in gross revenues of 48.4 percent. 

Conversely, if it is assumed that small 

vessels shift their operations into state 

waters and large vessels exit the fishery, 

then only the 26 large vessels would be 

directly impacted. For these vessels, 

they would lose 100 percent of their 

gross revenues. However, since the 

permits would be fully transferrable 

under this alternative, the 47 vessels 

that have been active in the EEZ may be 

able and willing to purchase a permit 

from a qualifying vessel in order to 

continue current operations. Given an 

estimated permit purchase price of 

$5,000, this cost would represent 5.2 

percent of these vessels’ average gross 

revenues. Although this alternative 

would generate somewhat less adverse 

economic impacts relative to the action, 

it would also allow for a higher number 

of latent or speculative permit holders, 

which is contrary to the Council’s 

objectives. 

Another alternative would have 

allowed all vessels that possessed a 

valid permit within 1 year of the 

publication date of the final rule 

implementing these actions to qualify 

for a moratorium permit. Since the date 

of the final rule’s publication is 

presently unknown, it was assumed that 

all vessels that possessed a permit on at 

least one day during the current 

calendar year would qualify under this 

alternative. Thus, using this 

assumption, 347 vessels would be 

denied a moratorium permit under this 

alternative according to currently 

available information. Of those 347 

vessels, 88 were not active in the Gulf 

shrimp fishery and 72 only operated in 

state waters. Thus, it is concluded that 

these 160 vessels’ profits would not 

have been affected under this 

alternative. The other 187 vessels were 

active in the EEZ and, thus, would have 

been directly impacted. Specifically, 

assuming these vessels would lose all 

their landings and gross revenues from 

the EEZ, the percentage losses in gross 

revenues would range from 0.2 percent 

to 100 percent, with an average loss of 

71.8 percent. If it is assumed that small 

vessels shift their operations into state 

waters and large vessels exit the fishery, 

then only the 168 large vessels would be 

directly impacted. These 168 large 

vessels would lose 100 percent of their 

gross revenues. However, since the 

permits would be fully transferrable 

under this alternative, the 187 vessels 

active in the EEZ may be able and 

willing to purchase a permit from a 

qualifying vessel in order to continue 

current operations. Given an estimated 

permit purchase price of $5,000, this 

cost would represent 4.3 percent of 

these vessels’ average gross revenues. 

However, if all the owners of these 187 

vessels were to renew their permits 

prior to the publication of the final rule, 

then none of these vessels would be 

impacted under this alternative. 

Although this alternative could 

potentially generate less adverse 

economic impacts than the final rule, 

based on currently available 

information, it is more likely that it 

would generate greater adverse 

economic impacts. Furthermore, since 

this alternative would continue to allow 

individuals to apply for and receive 

valid permits until the publication of 

the final rule, it could also lead to a 

considerably higher number of latent or 

speculative permit holders, which is 

contrary to the Council’s objectives. 

Copies of the FRFA are available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare an FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ As part of this 

rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a 

fishery bulletin, which also serves as a 

small entity compliance guide. The 

fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel 

permit holders for the Gulf shrimp 

fishery. 

This final rule contains collection-ofinformation requirements subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which have been approved by OMB. 

Following are the OMB control numbers 

and the estimated average public 

reporting burdens, per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collections of 

information: (1) Application for a royal 

red shrimp endorsement—0648–0205, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
56046 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

20 minutes; (2) electronic logbook 

installation and data downloads—0648–

0543, 31 minutes; (3) notification for 

observer placement prior to a trip—

0648–0205, 4 minutes; (4) vessel and 

gear characterization form—0648–0542, 

20 minutes; (5) submission of landings 

data—0648–0205, 5 minutes; and (6) 

basis for Gulf shrimp moratorium 

permit—0648–0205, 1 minute. Send 

comments regarding these burden 

estimates or any other aspect of the 

collection-of-information requirements, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS and by e-mail to OMB 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the PRA, unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: September 20, 2006. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE 

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH 

ATLANTIC 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 622.4, paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and 

(g)(1) are revised, and paragraph (s) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 622.4 Permits and fees. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(xi) Gulf shrimp fisheries—(A) Gulf 

shrimp permit. For a person aboard a 

vessel to fish for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ 

or possess shrimp in or from the Gulf 

EEZ, a commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf shrimp must have been issued to 

the vessel and must be on board. See 

paragraph (s) of this section regarding a 

moratorium on commercial vessel 

permits for Gulf shrimp and the 

associated provisions. See the following 

paragraph, (a)(2)(xi)(B) of this section, 

regarding an additional endorsement 

requirement related to royal red shrimp. 

(B) Gulf royal red shrimp 

endorsement. Effective March 26, 2007, 

for a person aboard a vessel to fish for 

royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or 

possess royal red shrimp in or from the 

Gulf EEZ, a commercial vessel permit 

for Gulf shrimp with a Gulf royal red 

shrimp endorsement must be issued to 

the vessel and must be on board. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Vessel permits, licenses, and 

endorsements and dealer permits. A 

vessel permit, license, or endorsement 

or a dealer permit issued under this 

section is not transferable or assignable, 

except as provided in paragraph (m) of 

this section for a commercial vessel 

permit for Gulf reef fish, in paragraph 

(n) of this section for a fish trap 

endorsement, in paragraph (o) of this 

section for a king mackerel gillnet 

permit, in paragraph (p) of this section 

for a red snapper license, in paragraph 

(q) of this section for a commercial 

vessel permit for king mackerel, in 

paragraph (r) of this section for a charter 

vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal 

migratory pelagic fish or Gulf reef fish, 

in paragraph (s) of this section for a 

commercial vessel moratorium permit 

for Gulf shrimp, in § 622.17(c) for a 

commercial vessel permit for golden 

crab, in § 622.18(e) for a commercial 

vessel permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper, or in § 622.19(e) for a 

commercial vessel permit for South 

Atlantic rock shrimp. A person who 

acquires a vessel or dealership who 

desires to conduct activities for which a 

permit, license, or endorsement is 

required must apply for a permit, 

license, or endorsement in accordance 

with the provisions of this section. If the 

acquired vessel or dealership is 

currently permitted, the application 

must be accompanied by the original 

permit and a copy of a signed bill of sale 

or equivalent acquisition papers. In 

those cases where a permit, license, or 

endorsement is transferable, the seller 

must sign the back of the permit, 

license, or endorsement and have the 

signed transfer document notarized. 

* * * * * 

(s) Moratorium on commercial vessel 

permits for Gulf shrimp. The provisions 

of this paragraph (s) are applicable 

through October 26, 2016. 

(1) Date moratorium permits are 

required. Beginning March 26, 2007, the 

only valid commercial vessel permits 

for Gulf shrimp are those issued under 

the moratorium criteria in this 

paragraph (s). 

(2) Initial eligibility for a moratorium 

permit. Initial eligibility for a 

commercial vessel moratorium permit 

for Gulf shrimp is limited to a person 

who 

(i) Owns a vessel that was issued a 

Federal commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf shrimp on or before December 6, 

2003; or 

(ii) On or before December 6, 2003, 

owned a vessel that was issued a 

Federal commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf shrimp and, prior to September 26, 

2006, owns a vessel with a Federal 

commercial permit for Gulf shrimp that 

is equipped for offshore shrimp fishing, 

is at least 5 net tons (4.54 metric tons), 

is documented by the Coast Guard, and 

is the vessel for which the commercial 

vessel moratorium permit is being 

applied. 

(3) Application deadline and 

procedures. An applicant who desires a 

commercial vessel moratorium permit 

for Gulf shrimp must submit an 

application to the RA postmarked or 

hand delivered not later than October 

26, 2007. After that date, no 

applications for additional commercial 

vessel moratorium permits for Gulf 

shrimp will be accepted. Application 

forms are available from the RA. Failure 

to apply in a timely manner will 

preclude permit issuance even when the 

applicant otherwise meets the permit 

eligibility criteria. 

(4) Determination of eligibility. NMFS’

permit records are the sole basis for 

determining eligibility based on permit 

history. An applicant who believes he/ 

she meets the permit eligibility criteria 

based on ownership of a vessel under a 

different name, as may have occurred 

when ownership has changed from 

individual to corporate or vice versa, 

must document his/her continuity of 

ownership. 

(5) Incomplete applications. If an 

application that is postmarked or handdelivered in a timely manner is 

incomplete, the RA will notify the 

applicant of the deficiency. If the 

applicant fails to correct the deficiency 

within 30 days of the date of the RA’s 

notification, the application will be 

considered abandoned. 

(6) Notification of ineligibility. If the 

applicant does not meet the applicable 

eligibility requirements of paragraph 

(s)(2) of this section, the RA will notify 

the applicant, in writing, of such 

determination and the reasons for it. 

(7) Permit transferability. Commercial 

vessel moratorium permits for Gulf 

shrimp are fully transferable, with or 

without the sale of the vessel. To 

request that the RA transfer a 

commercial vessel moratorium permit 

for Gulf shrimp, the owner of a vessel 

that is to receive the transferred permit 

must complete the transfer information 

on the reverse of the permit and return 

the permit and a completed application 

for transfer to the RA. Transfer 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 56047 

documents must be notarized as 

specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section. 

(8) Renewal. (i) Renewal of a 

commercial vessel moratorium permit 

for Gulf shrimp is contingent upon 

compliance with the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for Gulf shrimp 

specified in § 622.5(a)(1)(iii). 

(ii) A commercial vessel moratorium 

permit for Gulf shrimp that is not 

renewed will be terminated and will not 

be reissued during the moratorium. A 

permit is considered to be not renewed 

when an application for renewal, as 

required, is not received by the RA 

within 1 year of the expiration date of 

the permit. 

■ 3. In § 622.5, paragraph (a)(1)(iii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Gulf shrimp—(A) General 

reporting requirement. The owner or 

operator of a vessel that fishes for 

shrimp in the Gulf EEZ or in adjoining 

state waters, or that lands shrimp in an 

adjoining state, must provide 

information for any fishing trip, as 

requested by the SRD, including, but not 

limited to, vessel identification, gear, 

effort, amount of shrimp caught by 

species, shrimp condition (heads on/ 

heads off), fishing areas and depths, and 

person to whom sold. 

(B) Electronic logbook reporting. The 

owner or operator of a vessel for which 

a Federal commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf shrimp has been issued and who is 

selected by the SRD must participate in 

the NMFS-sponsored electronic logbook 

reporting program as directed by the 

SRD. In addition, such owner or 

operator must provide information 

regarding the size and number of shrimp 

trawls deployed and the type of BRD 

and turtle excluder device used, as 

directed by the SRD. Compliance with 

the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) is required for 

permit renewal. 

(C) Vessel and Gear Characterization 

Form. All owners or operators of vessels 

applying for or renewing a commercial 

vessel moratorium permit for Gulf 

shrimp must complete an annual Gulf 

Shrimp Vessel and Gear 

Characterization Form. The form will be 

provided by NMFS at the time of permit 

application and renewal. Compliance 

with this reporting requirement is 

required for permit issuance and 

renewal. 

(D) Landings report. The owner or 

operator of a vessel for which a Federal 

commercial vessel permit for Gulf 

shrimp has been issued must annually 

report the permitted vessel’s total 

annual landings of shrimp and value, by 

species, on a form provided by the SRD. 

Compliance with this reporting 

requirement is required for permit 

renewal. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 622.8, paragraph (a)(5) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.8 At-sea observer coverage. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Gulf shrimp. A vessel for which a 

Federal commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf shrimp has been issued must carry 

a NMFS-approved observer, if the 

vessel’s trip is selected by the SRD for 

observer coverage. Vessel permit 

renewal is contingent upon compliance 

with this paragraph (a)(5). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–8257 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 060418103–6181–02 ; I.D. 

091806D] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery; 

Commercial Period 1 Quota Harvested 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Closure of spiny dogfish fishery. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

spiny dogfish commercial quota 

available to the coastal states from 

Maine through Florida for the semiannual quota period, May 1, 2006 –

October 31, 2006, has been harvested. 

Therefore, effective 0001 hours, 

September 25, 2006, federally permitted 

commercial vessels may not fish for, 

possess, transfer, or land spiny dogfish 

until November 1, 2006, when the 

Period 2 quota becomes available. 

Regulations governing the spiny dogfish 

fishery require publication of this 

notification to advise the coastal states 

from Maine through Florida that the 

quota has been harvested and to advise 

vessel permit holders and dealer permit 

holders that no Federal commercial 

quota is available for landing spiny 

dogfish in these states. This action is 

necessary to prevent the fishery from 

exceeding its Period 1 quota and to 

allow for effective management of this 

stock. 

DATES: Quota Period 1 for the spiny 

dogfish fishery is closed effective at 

0001 hr local time, September 25, 2006, 

through 2400 hr local time October 31, 

2006. Effective September 25, 2006, 

federally permitted dealers are also 

advised that they may not purchase 

spiny dogfish from federally permitted 

spiny dogfish vessels. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Frei, Fisheries Management Specialist, 

at (978) 281–9221, or 

Don.Frei@Noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations governing the spiny dogfish 

fishery are found at 50 CFR part 648. 

The regulations require annual 

specification of a commercial quota, 

which is allocated into two quota 

periods based upon percentages 

specified in the fishery management 

plan. The commercial quota is 

distributed to the coastal states from 

Maine through Florida, as described in 

§ 648.230. 

The initial total commercial quota for 

spiny dogfish for the 2006 fishing year 

is 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) (71 FR 

40436, July 17, 2006 ). The commercial 

quota is allocated into two periods (May 

1 through October 31, and November 1 

through April 30). Vessel possession 

limits are intended to preclude directed 

fishing, and they are set at 600 lb (272 

kg) for both quota Periods 1 and 2. 

Quota period 1 is allocated 2.3 million 

lb (1.05 million kg)), and quota Period 

2 is allocated 1.7 million lb (763,849 kg) 

of the commercial quota. The total quota 

cannot be exceeded, so landings in 

excess of the amount allocated to quota 

Period 1 have the effect of reducing the 

quota available to the fishery during 

quota Period 2. 

The Administrator, Northeast Region, 

NMFS (Regional Administrator) 

monitors the commercial spiny dogfish 

quota for each quota period and, based 

upon dealer reports, state data, and 

other available information, determines 

when the total commercial quota will be 

harvested. NMFS is required to publish 

a notification in the Federal Register 

advising and notifying commercial 

vessels and dealer permit holders that, 

effective upon a specific date, the 

Federal spiny dogfish commercial quota 

has been harvested and no Federal 

commercial quota is available for 

landing spiny dogfish for the remainder 

of that quota period. 

Section 648.4(b) provides that Federal 

spiny dogfish permit holders agree, as a 

condition of the permit, not to land 

spiny dogfish in any state after NMFS 

has published notification in the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1